I'm Proud To Be an American!!! - Page 7

bub · 11-08-07, 06:20 PM

From What Does It Mean to Be an American? Patriotism, Nationalism, and American Identity After 9/11

Qiong Li
Mershon Center, Ohio State University
Marilynn B. Brewer
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University

Quote:

The meaning and consequences of national identification have long been the
subject of debate among philosophers, historians, and social scientists. Of particular
concern is the question of whether identification with one’s country—in the
form of national attachment, pride, and loyalty—is or is not necessarily associated
with derogation and contempt of nations and cultures other than one’s own.
On the positive side, group identification at the national level, like other social
identities (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), creates bonds of
solidarity among all members, aligns individual interests with national welfare,
and provides the motivation for being a good group member at the individual
level—that is, for enacting the voluntary, participatory behaviors that constitute
the citizen role (Brewer, in press). On the downside, high levels of national iden-

tification (“hypernationalism”) have been associated with authoritarianism, intolerance,
and warmongering (Van Evera, 1994).
This differentiation between the positive and negative manifestations of
national identification is represented in social psychology by drawing a distinction
between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” with the former connoting pride and
love for country and the latter referring to chauvinistic arrogance and desire for
dominance in international relations. As a healthy national self-concept, patriotism
is positive love of one’s own country (Bar-Tal, 1993; Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997;
Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989) related to secure ingroup identification
(Druckman, 1994) and independent of outgroup derogation (Brewer, 1999). By
contrast, nationalism is related to insecure ingroup identification and intergroup
differentiation, including the view that one’s own country is superior to others and
thus should be dominant (Feshbach, 1994; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989;
Mummendey, Klink, & Brown, 2001).
Because nationalism and patriotism share the feature of positive ingroup evaluation
and pride, they are positively correlated both conceptually and empirically
(Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). The difference between the constructs lies in their
relationship to intergroup attitudes. Patriotism is compatible with internationalist
values and cooperation, but nationalism is negatively correlated with internationalism
(Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989) and positively related to militarism (Furia,
2002; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). Internally, patriotism may also be compatible
with liberalism and tolerance for diversity, but nationalism is more likely to
be associated with authoritarian values and intolerance. As two different sides of
the same coin (e.g., de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003; Worchel & Coutant, 1997), it
is possible that “love of nation” can be associated with benign patriotic attitudes
under some circumstances or with more malign nationalistic attitudes in other
circumstances, within the same individual. Which conceptualization of national
identity is activated may vary as a function of the perceived intergroup context,
the salience of different national symbols, or the behavior of national leaders.

Iriemon · 11-08-07, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

I was talking about one of the reasons the UN was formed in the mid to late 1940’s. Intervene in conflicts and prevent genocides. Something they’ve never lived up to even today...

Not WWII in general.

The UN was founded with the objective of preventing another world war. Whether the UN gets any credit or not for the fact that has not happened is a matter of opinion, but that has not happened.

Khayembii Communique · 11-08-07, 11:51 PM

Has anyone here ever heard of Benedict Anderson's concept of the imagined community?

Quote:

Anderson defined a nation as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign".[1] An imagined community is different from an actual community because it is not (and cannot be) based on quotidian face-to-face interaction between its members. Instead, members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity. As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".[1]

Wiki on the Imagined Community

PeteEU · 11-09-07, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

I was talking about one of the reasons the UN was formed in the mid to late 1940’s. Intervene in conflicts and prevent genocides. Something they’ve never lived up to even today...

Not WWII in general.

The UNs role is not and has never been to intervene in conflicts. This is a misconception often spread by anti UN forces primarily in the US, or by people who dont know what the "%!% they are talking about.

As for prevent genocides. Another interpetation, often made by the right anti UN forces in the US.

Charter of the United Nations

the UN charter. Says nothing in the Preamble on preventing genocides. It does say to prevent war, but thats hardly intervene. Even Chapter 1, which is the PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES does not give any indication that the UN was made to kick out dictators or remove threats to world peace by military means. In fact it states peacefull means as the only real conflict resolution means.

And when you say "they", that includes the US, who has often used its veto so to prevent the UN in "living up to its precived role"... funny no?

Voidwar · 11-11-07, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

And when you say "they", that includes the US, who has often used its veto so to prevent the UN in "living up to its precived role"... funny no?

Who else has a veto, and what has theirs been used for ?

Your statement here is a smear attempt, considering everyone else with a veto has done more of what you decry.